posted at 7:21 pm on June 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

I know, I know: “An online poll?!” C’mon, humor me. It’s Friday evening and the news pickins are slim. Besides, I feel a regrettable twinge of vindication in this result. Bloomberg is indeed a loathsome nanny-state tool and I’d never support a ban on big portions, but as I said once before, I do think limiting portion size will probably lead to marginal weight loss in the aggregate. That end doesn’t justify the means of taking another step down the slippery slope of controlling people’s diets, but just because we oppose a certain policy doesn’t guarantee that it won’t achieve part of what it’s meant to do.

Anyway. You trust online poll respondents, don’t you?

Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday said they would oppose the introduction of a similar [soda ban] measure where they live, saying it gave government too much control over people’s dietary choices.

More than 70 percent of the nearly 1,000 U.S. adults polled online also said they did not think the proposed rule would affect obesity rates. About 30 percent disagreed, saying it could help curb obesity and lower healthcare costs…

At the same time, the majority of those polled said that if faced with a similar ban, they would significantly change their own drinking habits by switching to water, low-calorie drinks or diet beverages, or simply consuming fewer full-calorie drinks.

Fewer than one-third of respondents said they would buy additional servings to compensate for a such a ban, according to the online survey.

It’s gratifying to know that so much of the public is on guard about dietary nannyism, but the Bloombergs of the world will find tremendous encouragement in those boldfaced results. Remember, their standard rap when confronted about the unpopularity of the ban is that smoking bans were unpopular too before the public got used to them. The health police don’t care if you like what they’re doing; they trust that you’ll come to like it in time, and if you don’t, hey — they’re doing it for your own good, not to make friends. If the ban goes into effect and they find some metric showing that the public collectively lost a little weight because of it, that’ll be all the encouragement they need. Here’s the accompanying graph from Reuters:

I’m kind of shocked by that result, just because it comes in the context of people roundly rejecting paternalistic intrusions into what they eat and drink. The state is claiming that it will succeed in making you healthier if given the regulatory power to compel you, and here’s an irritated set of respondents angrily declaring … yeah, it probably will. Then again, how much we can trust the respondents to answer a question like this honestly? The subtext here, and the subtext of the ban itself, is that only the gluttonous and obese (or soon-to-be obese) gorge themselves on giant sodas. Go figure that when a pollster asks someone whether they’d continue to gorge themselves on soda if giant cups were banned, they feel a pang of shame and falsely declare that they’d switch to something healthier instead. (On the other hand, since this is an online poll and not something told to another person over the phone, might respondents actually answer that question truthfully?)

Ah well. Look on the bright side, guys: If the soda ban does come to your city, you’ll get to enjoy the libertarian pleasures of … er, smaller portions. TNR:

Indeed, the 16-ounce limit might actually enhance individual liberty by compelling restaurants and bottlers to sell soda in the smaller quantities that people often want but can’t get. It might become possible once again to order a Coke at a movie theater in something less than a Jacuzzi-sized tub. After all, the government isn’t the only actor imposing its will on Americans today; corporations boss them around quite a bit, and, unlike the government, they seldom have to answer to anyone but their shareholders for it. When their bullying gets rough, it sure can help to have a tough nanny in your corner.

If the market won’t meet the public’s clamoring demand for less food, then darn it, the government will. Via Mark Serrano, here’s a very New Yorkish little satire of the city’s latest lurch towards utopia. Exit quotation from NYC Health Commissioner Thomas Farley: “It’s not saying ‘no’ to people. It’s saying, ‘Are you sure? Do you really want that?'”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I don’t get why the ban would make people want to switch to water. That makes no sense to me. Is it because they perceive the cost per ounce to go down the more they buy, so the smaller ones aren’t worth it, cost-wise?

I’m a healthy person. I obsess about nutrition and eating what I (think) is good for me, and this B.S. pisses me off. When I go to a place like Chilli’s or Applebee’s, (on business, I would NEVER choose them on my own) I am ANNOYED that I’m faced with the calorie counts and the “health factor”. I’m going to eat what I want, I’m an adult, I’m responsible for my choices.” No one looks at the caloric total and thinks, “Thank God my Gov’t is looking out for me- I’ll have a small salad”. What an enormous waste of time and money.

A touchy-feely poll framed in non-political terms of health, with the three assenting choices sounding sensible or clever and the sole dissenting choice sounding absurd or gluttonous. And no option of indifference.

The real answer, of course, is “stage an electoral revolt and harass the public officials responsible.”

I’d be willing to bet if such a ban were in place what people would actually do would look nothing like that chart. There are a lot of people in that ‘switch to water’ category that are people who know, and wish they drank water all the time but just don’t for whatever reason.

Funny … I didn’t see “move” or “stop eating out” on the list of possibilities. When they put the smoking ban in effect, first I stopped eating out and then I moved.

There should also be a “none of your f%#$@ing business what I’m going to do” option. But, I don’t care what option these people pick. I lived in Manhattan for years and would never set foot in that sh!thole again. They suck for voting that midget Stalin in three times and they deserve what they get.

Lastly, why didn’t they have “Ron Paul” as an option? It would have gotten at least 63%.

…since somebody told me there could be a $200.00 fine if I get a coke bigger than 16 ounces…but not as much if I smoke what JugEars smokes…so skrew the coke! I’ll have the munchies…so after 3 Big Mac’s and a couple of fries…that water will be good!

Furthermore, why would you switch to unsweetened drinks or water just because the available sizes were limited ? That’s idiotic.

I say that poll has been spammed by moronic liberal fascists. What really boggles my mind is why liberals seems so enthusiastic about limiting the choices of others. I understand it from politicians, but the average person on the street that says they’re liberal ? Makes no sense.

The state is claiming that it will succeed in making you healthier if given the regulatory power to compel you, and here’s an irritated set of respondents angrily declaring … yeah, it probably will.

I’m not sure I agree. What kind of choices did they get in the response? I noticed that none said that it wouldn’t change their habits at all. Most fast food places let you get unlimited refills, so it’s always made financial sense to buy a smaller cup, no matter how much soda you want.

Besides, buying two cups just to spite the man? I could always keep a 2 liter at home and stop buying drinks from fast food places altogether. It’s odd how this ban assumes we get most of our unhealthy soda from these places anyway.

Here’s the fly in this ointment: Many years ago I decided to switch from regular sodas to diet sodas. I did this voluntarily in order to limit my sugar intake. I didn’t suddenly decide to become some sort of soda teetotaler. I simply switched over to the diet version of the soda’s that I normally consumed. I never was a consumer of the giant cup soda’s, I simply bought an ice cold bottle of the soda I was craving at the time. I also drink water and juices.

My point is that I’d like to know how many of the ‘online survey responders’ were people who BOUGHT LARGE SIZE REGULAR SODA’S TO BEGIN ,and how many already drank water or coffer or any other liquid refreshment regularly instead.

As I think of it, I don’t know anyone among my colleagues or acquaintances whom I’ve ever seen in the possession of a large size regular soda, at lunch or dinner, at meetings or even at sporting events.

I have, however, seen most of them consume a very large container of coffee replete with whipped cream or ‘foam’ and various other toppings and additives that I’m certain rendered the potion as fattening as a bowl of ice cream. Not only are these ‘coffees’ laden with sugar, they are also, often, laden with milk or cream as well, rendering them far less than ‘heart healthy’ alternatives and adding considerably to the caloric intake of those who ingest them. Not only are these drinks fattening, they are also, often raising bad ( LDL) cholesterol levels.

We always think we will be able to eat healthier and try all kinds of stupid diets and buy exercise machines or memberships we hardly ever use or stick to.

So sure people will say I would eat healthier.

But they won’t. Especially if that second 16 oz is very cheap.

For movie theaters this is really stupid. 64 oz cups are common and with popcorn you drink a lot. Four glasses? Where are you going to put them? Course Bloomberg probably never goes to a normal movie theater.

I’m a healthy person. I obsess about nutrition and eating what I (think) is good for me, and this B.S. pisses me off. When I go to a place like Chilli’s or Applebee’s, (on business, I would NEVER choose them on my own) I am ANNOYED that I’m faced with the calorie counts and the “health factor”. I’m going to eat what I want, I’m an adult, I’m responsible for my choices.” No one looks at the caloric total and thinks, “Thank God my Gov’t is looking out for me- I’ll have a small salad”. What an enormous waste of time and money.

BettyRuth on June 8, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Obsessing is not healthy. Also if you obsess over what you eat then the caloric-info is something you use. Perhaps you’re the rare bird who looks up the info online. I doubt it.

I think you’re lying to some degree, which sucks since I agree with the tone of your remarks.

Help me understand precisely what type of deals are closed at Applebee’s? Chilli’s? Really? Maybe Hooters was fully-booked.

Marcus on June 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM

He looked like drug-defendant on trial wearing a suit given to him by his court-appointed atty. MSNBC should stage an intervention.

At the same time, the majority of those polled said that if faced with a similar ban, they would significantly change their own drinking habits by switching to water, low-calorie drinks or diet beverages, or simply consuming fewer full-calorie drinks.

That defies logic. Why would someone all of a sudden decide they’ll drink water or diet because the 28oz full calorie is banned, but yet you can still buy the exact same product in 16oz?

Why would the size change people’s minds about flavors? That makes no sense whatsoever.

At the same time, the majority of those polled said that if faced with a similar ban, they would significantly change their own drinking habits by switching to water, low-calorie drinks or diet beverages, or simply consuming fewer full-calorie drinks.

What??? Cognitive dissonance. You can’t buy the super duper sized sugar rich soda so instead of switching to a smaller size you’ll switch to water or diet?

If I can’t have a Magnum I’m giving up champagne for water or green tea! It’s all or nothing!

It’s not about majorities agreeing with a policy that infringes on freedom. TJefferson talked of the “tyranny of the majority” that can happen sometimes in democracy. That’s why there is a constitution. Freedom will be infringed as differing coalitions of majorities arise to chip away at this, and then that. Freedom counts. Don’t abide by this.

If their next-door neighbors tried to ban them from buying a Big Gulp, I bet even that pathetic percentage of wishy-washy Americans above would offer them a middle finger and a “Go to Hell!”. But if Nanny McBloomberg — one of our government betters — does so, it’s worth their consideration. Yikes. Those folks are American in name only.

I’m going to get a Papa Murphy pizza tonight and just checked. They will take my EBT card. That is nice and I appreciate it. I wonder what Michelle and Bloomberg think of that since they are health nuts on this obesity kick?

.
The poll is worth less than nothing. How many of the 977 people buy larger than the 16oz size? All the other respondents answers should have been discarded. How about a poll of 1,000 random persons asking what color their next Lamborghini will be? It’s doubtful that more than 2 in the 1,000 have had their first Lamborghini, therefore, 998 respondents would not even qualify to provide a valid answer, but they would still be counted. Same as here with this bunch of words and charts to fill space.

Go figure that when a pollster asks someone whether they’d continue to gorge themselves on soda if giant cups were banned, they feel a pang of shame and falsely declare that they’d switch to something healthier instead. (On the other hand, since this is an online poll and not something told to another person over the phone, might respondents actually answer that question truthfully?)

The poll is missing one SIGNIFICANT answer. Which makes it more than questionable.
“I don’t drink large sugared sodas today”.

If you already drink diet/water/small drinks… how do you answer?

You answer “I’d switch to” and whatever you drink.

But you don’t switch because of the law; you in fact ALREADY switched… I switched to diet about 3 years ago. And I’d answer that “switch to diet” although I wouldn’t be switching.

What true % of people get a > 16 oz sugary drink on a regular enough basis this is their standard?

For a hypothetical, lets say 40%… and 30% would buy more… so you’re fixing 10% of the total population, not 70% with your intervention.

Considerably less persuasive to say “we’ll fix 10% with a ban on everyone’s activities”. But we can’t answer that without adding a “I already don’t drink large sugared sodas” question to the poll.

And that kind of proves that the question doesn’t make sense. More people will drink more soda than do now to make up for the ban on behavior they’re not regularly engaging in?

That’s like a menthol smoking ban resulting in MORE smokers. Not gonna happen.

If your regular choice is water (43%) and your answer is switch to water (34%)… so 7% will now drink soda and not water, when their regular drink is water? I’d guess ALL of the 34% “switch to water” were also the 43% “my regular drink is water” and they’re actually saying “I won’t change at all”; not “you’ll change my behavior a lot”.

And now, does “drink less” mean “drink smaller amounts” or “drink soda, which isn’t my first choice, less often than my first choice”? Again, the ambiguity takes a “no change” response and makes it a “the ban works” response.

Without clarifying the questions a lot more than they are here; I’m not sure what the respondents MEANT with their answers.

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure… and they’re not very clever about it here.

Bloomberg is indeed a loathsome nanny-state tool and I’d never support a ban on big portions, but as I said once before, I do think limiting portion size will probably lead to marginal weight loss in the aggregate.

I seriously doubt it would make a difference. Yes, you can lose weight by eliminating soft drinks. But when that works for people, it’s almost always in the context of deliberately limiting their intake, not being forced to buy in smaller portions.

Absent that, I seriously doubt it would make an ounce of difference, if you’ll pardon the expression.

I’m much more amused at Dennis Miller’s comment that Bloomberg is just irritated that the big gulp is taller than he is.

just because we oppose a certain policy doesn’t guarantee that it won’t achieve part of what it’s meant to do.

You just keep telling that to the merchants that lose profit and the manufacturers that lose sales. This is a public policy issue. Of course it would have marginal success. Public policy is never perfect for everyone, it is picking the path with most benefit knowing full well that some will be negatively impacted. The fundamental question here is not the liberal’s standard of “intent” but if the government has a right to dictate the size of your beverage. The answer to that is a resounding no despite your clear support of the nation’s worst mayor. Seriously, I can’t believe you are standing up for this bastard. He has done little for NYC.

The fundamental flaw with this online poll is this idea that people are addicted to big full-calorie sodas. Show me the scientific proof that government intervention in limiting soda size would make a difference before supporting a disfigured gnome mayor who hates normal people is allowed to prevail with his nanny-state edicts.

Rudy cleaned up a corrupt city so this worthless bastard could suspend the rights of the citizen? Let’s get the corruption back if that is the case.

Every day I miss Rudy Giuliani more and more. It’s like NYC replaced George Washington (a great President and greater man who willingly left power) with FDR (his socialist programs and lust for power speak for themselves).

What is it with Democrats that they believe thay can completely ignore the Constitution & strip Americans of liberty, freedom, and their personal right to choose for themselves if they, the Democrats, believe what they are doing is in their ‘VICTIMS’ best interest?! How can politicians who have $crewed up our economy & so much more think they can fix ANYTHING, especially by denying US of rights?!

Yes, Obamacare’s insurance purchase mandate violates the constitution…Yes, Obamacare’s contraceptive/abortion-inducing drug mandate violates the Constitution…but ‘resistance is futile. We must be assimilated. It is in our best (actually THEIRS) interest.’

Yes, stripping us of our right to choose what we drink & in what size we can choose is stripping us of our own right to choose, will NOT make a difference…since it does not ban someone’s right to get 2 x 16oz sodas in place of 1 32oz soda (and targets Middle Class people again, who Democrats obviously think are too stupid to make their own choices).

The goverment has already dictated we will buy health insurance. now they have dictated we can’t buy a 32ox soda. What’s next? Is the goverment going to ban cookies, candy, ALL sodas? After that, perhaps they will expand Obamacare to mandate all families with girls must purchase & keep stocked contraceptives & the morning after pill? Maybe to try to make Obama’s ‘nationalization’ of GM/Chrysler a good decision he will mandate thatthe only car Americans can buy is a Goverment Motors car?!

Liberals continue to vastly exceed their authority & need to be put back in their place.

At the same time, the majority of those polled said that if faced with a similar ban, they would significantly change their own drinking habits by switching to water, low-calorie drinks or diet beverages, or simply consuming fewer full-calorie drinks.

I’m sure this has been noted somewhere above, but I’m thinking the giganto drink customer is not one for reading online political websites, or participating in online polls.

That said, the only person I actually knew who bought those things was a petite mom who was incredibly fit and active and she said it was the same as the 2-3 cups of coffee I had each morning while she sipped away at her biggie.

the majority of those polled said that if faced with a similar ban, they would significantly change their own drinking habit

Why would they wait until a ban then? If they would switch to something healthier, why not now? What a bunch of B.S.

I hate to tell the nannies, but what you drink does NOT dictate how obese you are. I, for one, never drink sugary drinks, they aren’t thirst quenching. I only drink water, unsweetened iced-tea, and a glass of grapefruit juice or wine now and then. I didn’t like pop even when I was a kid. However, I’m the fat one in the family thanks mostly to my sedentary IT job and genes from my Italian grandmother. Everyone else drinks pop all the time, my husband and son both work for Coke, and they are all either thin, or average. My eldest son is downright skinny (6’3″ 165lbs) and only gets exercise through his job, he doesn’t work out, hike, bike, walk, or anything else. He drinks lots of beer and alcohol and doesn’t have the greatest diet.

That said, you can always just make your own snacks, candy, cookies, and pop. Target and Bed Bath & Beyond both sell a machine that carbonates syrup to make your own pop. What will Bloomberg do, ration sugar?

I can’t imagine ordering a steak from a place with Cherry Coke on the menu.

Capitalist Hog on June 8, 2012 at 7:48 PM

lol what, no high-quality steak joints exist for people who don’t happen to enjoy the taste of alcohol while eating a great steak?

Have you ever heard of Manny’s, in Minneapolis? It has a reputation for being one of the very best steakhouses in the country. They serve soda – would you avoid such an establishment on that basis alone? If so, you’re nuts!

What was funny to me about Manny’s when I went there about 7 years ago is I found that they served Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup on their sundaes! I thought, “WTF?!” when learning that, but that had no impact the (amazing) quality of the $43 NY Strip entree I ordered, did it? :)

The uncontained impulse to control others is precisely why America is in the deep doo doo it is.Both parties contain folks like this.

You can bet that these types will be installed on every “death panel” It’s the very soul of their evil hearts to ultimately extend their abortion mentality to all things. It was once referred to more correctly as the nature of fallen man.

My wife has been harping on me to go to the doctor for a physical for years, after ten years of her nagging I caved like a beta male and finally went.
Please allow me to be Obama-like and talk about myself.

At 52 I am 5′ 10″, weighing 193 pounds, the BMI declares that I am overweight.
Physically I am very active, but, I do not engage in gym non-sense, running to nowhere, or the like.
I all but ignore the food pyramid. I eat sweets, fatty sauteed foods, cheese, red meat, fish, some vegetables, but I rarely eat chicken, turkey, or pork. If I can’t eat it raw I tend not to eat much of it.
I drink alcohol on occasion, I only drink water when I’m thirsty, with the exception of espresso I rarely drink anything else.
I’ve had a maximum of one cold per decade and the only supplement I use is fish oil (though I don’t exceed daily dosages, I never take their daily recommendations).

The numbers:
BP 110/70
HDL 51
LDL 119
The rest of my blood work was considered perfect.

It’s in my skepticism, not in the genes. My siblings and my parents have ruined their health by listening to stupid people who routinely make claims that have nothing to to with science.
Sugar is a sugar molecule no matter it’s source. In other words, a man has got to know his limitations and I recommend removing the gubberment from your list of reliable resources.

The idividual controls his weight. You can ban soda all you want and fatties will still be fat. When that person says “Hey, I want to lose weight”, that’s when it will happen. Meanwhile keep your cotton pickin’ hands off my soda pop!

I do think limiting portion size will probably lead to marginal weight loss in the aggregate.

Care to wager? If you can’t reduce the aggregate wait for kids, with their constitutions and in a controlled environment, then limiting portion sizes isn’t going to do anything.

Portion sizes have increased because of consumer demand, not the other way around. The causal arrow is backward. All limiting portion size will do is make it marginally more difficult for the consumer to get the intake they demand in that particular way, leaving a gazzilion other options (or they can just buy an extra).

Actually, I don’t think limiting portion size would lead to weight loss in the aggregate, even marginal weight loss. The reason is that no government program, restriction, or mandate that attempts to modify humanity in spite of itself ever has its ostensible intended result.

The human species is endlessly inventive and resistant to idiotic controls. Our behavior can also be classified in predictable patterns, things that work and things that don’t, things we naturally do, and natural things we do that always produce good or bad results. We are human first, and only then are we mere organisms to be controlled by ukases from a central authority. This is why state socialism always leads to the same bad ends.

I guarantee you, after a decade of government-imposed portion restrictions, the people affected by them will be even fatter.